It has been a few weeks, and I’m still trying to make why way through Francesca Stavrakopoulou’s controversial book, God: An Anatomy. As much as I have appreciated the number of people taking the time to read these posts, if I keep going at the pace I’m on, this book analysis will last another month. And, quite frankly, I am only halfway through the book, and things are getting pretty redundant. What I am going to try to do in this post is cover Parts 3-4 of Stavrakopoulou’s (Dr. S) book. Part 3 is entitled, “Torso” and includes Chapter 9 (“Back and Beyond”), Chapter 10 (“Inside Out”) and Chapter 11 (“From Belly to Bowel”). Part 4 is entitled, “Arms and Hands” and includes Chapter 12 (“Handedness”), Chapter 13 (“Arm’s Reach”), Chapter 14 (“Divine Touch”) and Chapter 15 (“Holy Handbooks”).
There is simply no way I am able to go through all these chapters in detail. And, quite frankly, I don’t want to, for the book really amounts to one large “Gish Gallop,” and it would be folly to try to run down every rabbit hole. By now, my criticisms of the book should be quite apparent.
- I don’t feel there is a coherent argument in the book. Supposedly, it is arguing that the God of the OT has a body. But all the book demonstrates is that there anthropomorphic language is used for God sometimes. But as to if it should be interpreted literally or not, Dr. S doesn’t really make an argument. She just says, “Oh, it’s literal!” and essentially leaves it at that.
- I don’t feel she respects the OT text at all, or makes any attempt to understand the verses and passages she brings up within their literary context. That simply does not seem to be a concern for her, because she completely ignores it. Instead, she interprets her given verses and passages through the lens of other ANE myths. To be clear, understanding the similarities in some ANE mythological language is crucial to do, for there are clearly similarities. But there are also significant differences too—and the larger context of these passages show that. But again, the larger context is something Dr. S has chosen to ignore. That’s a problem in my book.
- Finally, as should be obvious by now, the real focus and argument in Dr. S’s book has to do with that YHWH, the OT, the NT, and the entire history of Christianity really is about patriarchy, misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc.
A number of years ago, when I started researching the YEC movement, one of the biggest things I noticed was that a lot of the YEC activists (like Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis) really weren’t primarily concerned with proper exegesis of Genesis 1-11, or even the authority of the Bible. The real concern was with fighting their front in the “culture war,” and reading into the Bible all of their particular political and social agendas. I have to say that I think Dr. S’s book has all the same hallmarks of that very thing, just on the opposite extreme of the political and social spectrum. In that sense, let’s be clear, God: An Anatomy is not a Biblical Studies book. It is a certain kind of activist work masquerading as a Biblical Studies book.
Enough of my initial rant. Let me try to skim through Parts 3 and 4.
Part 3: Torso
In Chapter 9 (“Back and Beyond”), Dr. S says that when YHWH “passed by” Moses on Mount Sinai, it wasn’t much that YHWH showed Moses His “back,” but rather His “backside,” namely His buttocks, and that it was actually a sign of divine displeasure. Nevertheless, the experience caused Moses to undergo a bodily transformation that had the effect of “rendering him more divine than human” (178). Dr. S also claims that 2nd century “Christian” texts like the Acts of John tell that Jesus revealed “his gigantic, divine body” at the Transfiguration (179). To be clear, the Acts of John is an apocryphal text that never was accepted as a legitimate Christian text.
Dr. S then makes mention of Paul’s Damascus Road Experience, where it is said that light shown all about him. She takes this opportunity, not to talk about Paul, Jesus, or God’s body, but rather launches into a discussion how some Christian writers used “darkness” as a polemical association with people with black skin. “Blackness” was portrayed with deviancy, heresy, and sinfulness. She brings up a story in Athanasius’ book, The Life of Anthony, as an example of early Christian racism. She writes, “Satan changed tack, opting for a more direct approach – about which it is now thoroughly repugnant to read. In Athanasius’ Life of Antony, we are told: ‘[Satan] appeared, as was fitting, in a form that revealed his true nature: an ugly black boy prostrated himself at Antony’s feet, weeping loudly.’” (185). To be clear, Athanasius himself was black–he was called “the black dwarf” by his enemies. So it is odd to accuse Athanasius of being a racist Christian white guy.
Now, is it true that throughout Church history there have been people who have been racist? Of course. But this little tirade by Dr. S in a book supposedly about “God’s Anatomy” seems out of place and woefully over-simplistic. So, when Dr S says, “A direct line can be drawn from the early Christian demonization of black people to the well-known repugnant episodes and echoes of European colonialism” (188), that is just shockingly ill-informed and juvenile. “The racism of the colonial period can be directly linked to a black bishop of Alexandria who was a white supremacist!” Really? I’m sorry, no. That’s not a solid argument.
In Chapter 10 (“Inside Out”), Marduk and YHWH both praise King Cyrus, and Adam and Eve ate prohibited sacred food. Moving on…nothing worth really commenting on.
In Chapter 11 (“From Belly to Bowel”), Dr S argues that the OT sacrificial system really was set up by urban elitists who used it as a way to amass religious, economic, and political power. Also, she then refers to the Book of Nahum’s prophecy about the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC. She writes, “Falsely claiming responsibility for the fall of the Assyrian city of Nineveh in 612 BCE, the deity describes his assault on it as a sexual attack on a woman – likely a thinly disguised manifestation of the goddess Ishtar, the city’s powerful patron. Wrenching her skirts over her head, he displays her genitalia to onlooking nations and says, ‘I will throw shit all over you, and disfigure you, and make you a spectacle’ (223).
To be clear, Nahum does use that shocking imagery. And yes, it probably is a veiled reference to the humiliation of Ishtar. But note (1) Dr. S’s immediate dismissal of the possibility that Nahum actually prophesied about the destruction of Nineveh, and (2) her not so subtle claim of YHWH being misogynist. The sad fact is that when empires were destroyed by more powerful empires (in this case, it was Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon who destroyed Nineveh), raping and pillaging was what the victorious army engaged in. Nahum is describing the destruction of Nineveh in a way that was well-understood—that is what happened. And since Nahum believed that YHWH was the one true God who is over human history, he sees the destruction of Nineveh as YHWH’s righteous judgment against the Assyrian empire that was one of the most ruthless empires in history. Simply put, Nahum is saying, “Even though the Babylonian army is the one doing this, ultimately, this is YHWH’s judgment upon the wicked Assyrian empire.” Nahum isn’t “promoting misogyny.” He is describing the very real and horrible realities of ANE warfare and saying that ultimately it is YHWH’s judgment.
In any case, given the reference to “throwing shit” on the Ninevites, from there, Dr. S jumps back to the early centuries of the Christian era and claims that “some early Christians” debated whether or not Jesus, since he ate food with his disciples, actually defecated. They actually argued that he did not, in fact, defecate, because it was nonsensical to think that Jesus, a divine man, would have produced feces. Did you know this was a topic among early Christian teachers? I didn’t! But then, Dr. S helps enlighten us to just who these early Christians were: The “second-century Christian thinker” Marcion, and “the highly influential second-century theologian” Valentinus!
I’m sorry, but this is why it is so hard to take Dr. S’s work seriously. Both Marcion and Valentinus were heretical gnostics whom the actual early Church Fathers resoundingly condemned. Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna who was martyred in AD 155, called Marcion “the firstborn of Satan.” I mean, come on. How in the world does any scholar worth his/her salt venture to claim that Marcion and Valentinus were accepted early Christian thinkers? I’m sorry, but if this is an example of “mainstream scholarship” these days, it is really a sad indictment of the current state of affairs.
Part 4: Arms and Hands
In Chapter 12 (“Handedness”), Dr. S argues that since there are references to the “mighty hand” of the God of the OT, therefore, He had literal hands. Throughout the ancient world, whether it be YHWH, or any other ANE god, the way His enemies were destroyed was often described in terms of God using His “right hand” to scatter His enemies. Yes, that is true. No one is questioning that. That is obvious. Still, that doesn’t mean God has literal hands.
In Chapter 13 (“Arm’s Reach”), Dr. S notes that with the exile, when most of Jerusalem’s leaders were taken to Babylon, passages like Jeremiah 51:34 used that ANE mythological language of the sea monster to describe Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of Judah: “He has swallowed me like the Dragon; he has filled his belly with my delicacies, he has spewed me out!” Again, this is correct. But what amazes me is that Dr. S seems to miss a really crucial thing going on. Like I’ve said before, even though we find the language of ANE myth in the OT from time to time, the language is used to describe historical realities within the OT. Simply put, it isn’t just “mythological language.” Rather, is it mythological language applied and adapted to describe real events in history. This is a huge difference in the way the OT (and NT) use traditional ANE mythological language. And yet, it is completely ignored here.
In Chapter 14 (“Divine Touch”), once again Dr. S asserts that OT passages where YHWH is pictured as caring for, giving birth to, or mothering His people are actually reflecting a patriarchal, misogynistic ideology in which YHWH usurps “the roles of the birth goddesses, divine midwives and heavenly wet nurses more usually invoked to protect a babe in arms” (271). In the OT, the divine goddess Asherah has been marginalized and ignored.
In Chapter 15 (“Holy Handbooks”), Dr. S focuses on the importance of the sacred writings in both Judaism and Christianity. Again, one might be tempted to ask, “But what does this have to do with the argument that the God of the OT has a body?” Well, what can I tell you? It doesn’t. In any case, Dr. S makes a number of interesting claims.
- The smashing of the original stone tablets at Mount Sinai, gave YHWH a chance to impose more restrictions on their worship practices.
- The sacred texts weren’t so much meant to be read, as to be revered as icons.
- Nevertheless, the flying scrolls that Zechariah and Ezekiel see (as mentioned in their books), replaced God’s hand-written scroll.
- “For some early Christians, God’s scholarly activities as both a writer and reader would come to be replicated in the figure of Christ, whose self-penned Gospels, letters and teachings were reputedly circulating around Christian communities into the fifth century ce” (304). She does not explain what she means or to what she is referring.
Conclusion
I realize that this post has been rather haphazard. That is what happens when one tries to get through multiple chapters of a book that is rather disjointed, that doesn’t stay on the stated topic, and that jumps around to random verses and passages in order to champion a clear ideological agenda. And yes, I’ve highlighted parts that I find rather ridiculous. To be clear, there is plenty of good information on many ANE myths and various archeological finds. My problem is the unconvincing way she tries to argue, well, anything really.
In any case, I’ve been told by a couple of online biblical scholars that Dr. S’s book really does reflect mainstream biblical scholarship and that I am just an ignorant moron who knows nothing about Biblical Studies. So be it. It’s not biblical scholarship. It’s intellectual and academic masturbation. It might make scholars who write stuff like this feel real good, but ultimately it is a mess that nobody really wants to see.
I’ll have one more post in which I go through the last Part of the book, and then I’ll offer a concluding post to summarize my concluding thoughts.
“intellectual and academic masturbation” is too kind for this kind of juvenile and immature thinking masquerading as intelligent scholarship. This is made for the lowest common denominator of society. Not deep-thinking people.
It is hard to know how to react to this. It is just so bizarre. As a Christian, this kind of makes apologetics feel redundant. There needs to be at least some mildly compelling points to justify engagement.
As a lefty, I’d like to believe that writing complete nonsense like this would make it more likely that we get more paid maternity leave, can reduce sexual and domestic violence and result in policies that close the wealth gap between Black and white Americans, eliminate large prison sentences for non violent crimes, replace property taxes with something more equitable for school funding….that would be a nice silver lining….
It is hard to see how leaving our brains at the door makes any of that more likely
Sadly (and I’ve seen this same dynamic with far right YECists), the idolatrous impulse to distort Scripture to justify our own political views eventually leads us to clown town.
People might have differing political views (left, right, etc) to address certain issues, but usually there was still a common understanding as to what those issues, and what reality, was.
And so, for saying I think this book is out there, I’ve been called a number of politically-charged names, just like I was when I called out Ken Ham’s YECism.
I suppose one benefit of all this weirdness is I’m learning more about how I react to arguments against my beliefs. There is a simple idea floating around that we don’t process these arguments rationally but see them as threats.
I think that model is too simple- I think there is an uncanny valley.
If I see someone making sophisticated arguments for atheism like @secularoutpost or @realatheology . I tend to feel no threat at all. I can follow the steps, I feel like my view is understood and when it isn’t there is genuine attempt to understand and I understand why we disagree and feel comfortable with it.
Similarly, in politics I sometimes feel the same way arguing with a consistent right wing libertarian.
On the other extreme, something like Fransesca or Richard Carriers work is just so off the deep end I tend to not see my threat perception triggered at all
Where my threat perception is triggered and I have to discipline myself to react rationally is when someone is in the uncanny valley – rational enough to take seriously but irrational enough to worry they are insincere and motivated by animosity
Bart Ehrman is often in the uncanny valley, combining sophisticated historical analysis with on the nose analogies like the game of telephone.
Similarly, a Paul Ryan figure is similar – combining coherent right wing economic arguments with magic asterixes.
Perhaps the difficulty with politics and religion is that most people live in each others uncanny valley
anyway, something for me to chew on
I actually came here just to ask you a question about the YEC stuff. I saw a video on YouTube where you explained that Gen. 1-11 should (or could) be considered a myth in which the original authors and readers did not see as historical. I have a couple of questions. 1. Where and how could I study the genres well enough to be able to confidently determine this without relying on a person’s interpretation who may have bad intentions.
2. You mentioned that the purpose was to differentiate from the other theologies which believed in bad gods and pointless humanity. Is there a possibility that they were also differentiating from the societies around them by writing a similar genre but, with inside information from the God who values them, they are able to write history unlike fiction. Basically, is it possible that their special relationship with God have them inside information so that even though they wrote in the same genre or style, their information was accurate whereas the pagan info was pure fictional myth.
Finally, thank you ahead of time if you respond to this. I appreciate the way you explain your points. There is a diehard YEC guy who leads youth with me at church and it bothers me that he believes if you don’t think exactly like he thinks then you have lost the whole foundation of Christianity. But at the same time we have liberal theologians who discount any supernatural event as myth.
1. Well, you kind of have to just search around. John Walton’s books about Genesis 1-3 are good. Brevard Childs had an old book entitled, “Myth and Reality in the Old Testament.” Some other books worth looking at: “Stories from Ancient Canaan” by Coogan and Smith; “The Babylonian Genesis” by Heidel has a great introduction on the issue. And then more recently, Lawrence R. Farley wrote “In the Beginning: The True Message of the Genesis Origin Stories.”
2. Basically, yes, I think that’s pretty accurate. I think the OT writers are using the GENRE of ANE to essentially subvert and destroy the general ANE pagan worldview. And obviously yes, I think the writers were given “inside information” about the true nature of God–i.e. revelation.
3. And yes, sadly, especially when it comes to the Genesis 1-11 question, the loudest voices are either Fundie YECists or what I call “Fundie” liberal theologians as well. Best to avoid both extremes.
“…even though we find the language of ANE myth in the OT from time to time, the language is used to describe historical realities within the OT. Simply put, it isn’t just “mythological language.” Rather, is it mythological language applied and adapted to describe real events in history. This is a huge difference in the way the OT (and NT) use traditional ANE mythological language. And yet, it is completely ignored here.”
Most (non-evangelical) historians believe that the Hebrew Creation story and the Hebrew Flood story are plagiarisms of early Babylonian myths. Most (non-evangelical) historians also believe that the Exodus, the Forty Years in the Sinai, the Conquest of Canaan, the Judges of Israel, the great empires of David and Solomon, and the stories told in the Book of Daniel of a vision-prone Hebrew prince named Daniel, captured by the Babylonians, are ALL non-historical Hebrew folklore or in the case of the Book of Daniel, a veiled attack on the Seleucid Empire. Therefore most of the Old Testament is myth. Yes, there are some historical parts. The historical parts begin with the Israelite kings of Ahab and his father Omri.
Interestingly Fransesca is sympathetic to Jesus mythicism. Also, like other bizarre mythicists like Carrier, She has quite an aggressive cult following on twitter!
I have encountered them!
I disagree with mythicists, not because there is substantial evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, but simply because the majority of historians believe he did exist. I accept majority expert opinion on all issues (with two caveats).
The biggest problem for Jesus mythicism is reconstructing the history of the early Church. It is an insurmountable death knell for them.
Could you give us an example, Dr. Davis? Bart Ehrman says that most NT scholars doubt that any of the Early Church Fathers knew the Twelve or Paul. What do you think?
I would tend to agree, but I am talking about 1) the existence of the Jerusalem church, and 2) Paul’s Christianity.
What evidence is there of the Jerusalem church other than Paul’s epistles and the anonymous Book of Acts? Are you referring to Josephus?
GARY: What evidence is there of the Jerusalem church other than Paul’s epistles and the anonymous Book of Acts? Are you referring to Josephus?
LEE: See! There’s your bias! Anything mentioned by Paul or Luke is automatically suspect from the very beginning.
Pax.
Lee.
LEE: See! There’s your bias! Anything mentioned by Paul or Luke is automatically suspect from the very beginning.
Gary: Not true. Documentary evidence is evidence. Period. But document evidence from non-friendly sources would be even better evidence. Example: There is no mention of a King Solomon in any non-Hebrew text of the Near East. Not one. This is why the historicity of the biblical Solomon is questioned. Not so with the biblical Kings Omri and Ahab. Non-friendly sources (Assyrian) affirm their historicity.
Graham: “Interestingly Fransesca is sympathetic to Jesus mythicism.”
Hahaha! No, Stavrakopoulou most definitely is not. Recently, when asked about Jesus mythicism on Mythvision Podcast she burst into uncontrolled laughter, and rightly called it silly.
Yeah could only find this and it’s pretty crackpot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9RUa4kP6K4
especially in the light of this https://twitter.com/i/events/793074673697320960
on the plus side it does make for some good entertainment. Especially the unhinged aggression of her twitter followers including yourself
Man, her scholarship is absolutely atrocious. It’s like watching “Caligula” on a loop. I’m even more convinced that her good looks is the primary reason she’s propped up. Reading far Left politics and sexual fetishes into the text automatically discredits anything she has to say but like other crackpot conspiracy theories (YEC, mythicism), it needs to be addressed. And yeah, academia in general has largely been ideologically captured.
I’ve made it a point not to mention anything about her looks–it’s completely irrelevant to whether or not one’s arguments are valid anyway. Nevertheless, a few Twitter trolls have accused me of being a misogynist anyway. Go figure.
Indeed, Paul’s Christianity is really hard to explain if all he saw was a light in the sky.
Plus, the Jesus of the canonical gospels is not the Jesus a group of otherwise orthodox, Messianic, 2nd Temple Jews would invent if they hoped to sell that Jesus to other Jews, less still to Greeks and Romans.
If you’re a pagan and inventing Jesus you’d come up with something similar to the Gnostic Jesus and if you’re Jewish, you’d come up with someone who looked a lot more like Simon bar Kokhba (only more successful).
Pax.
Lee.
“Plus, the Jesus of the canonical gospels is not the Jesus a group of otherwise orthodox, Messianic, 2nd Temple Jews would invent if they hoped to sell that Jesus to other Jews, less still to Greeks and Romans.”
99.9% of first century Jews rejected Jesus and the Resurrection Story. Estimates are that the Jewish population of the Roman Empire at that time was circa 4 million. The fact that a few thousand, mostly poor and uneducated, Jews believed this tale should not surprise anyone.
Not even the Bible claims that even ONE Greek or Roman saw the resurrected Jesus, so why did they believe? It wasn’t because they saw a resurrected body. They believed because they put their faith in someone else’s fantastical story. This is exactly how legends and rumors spread! Most Gentile converts were in the lower classes who were desperate for any glimmer of hope to their miserable lives. Christianity promised social equality and eternal riches. The educated classes ridiculed this tale (Celsus).
Gary, are we gonna go through all of this again?
Have you read anything by Rodney Stark? If not, you should. Stark is a noted sociologist who has argued convincingly that Christianity appealed to a broad spectrum of classes in the Empire, and not just country bumpkins and slaves.
Were Constantine and Helena ignorant poor folk? Was Augustine? Justin? Origen? Tertullian? Were the philosophers at the Areopagus in Acts 17 who asked to hear more of Paul’s message ignorants of the lower-class desperately clinging to any belief, no matter how fantastic? What about the Centurion Cornelius? or Phoebe of Cenchreae? Was Dr. Francis Collins an ignorant bumpkin looking for easy answers? Was CS Lewis? Was TS Eliot?
Pax.
Lee.
“In this essay I want to outline how the poor in the Graeco-Roman world survived – if they did – and how we might place early Christian networks in and among the poor, on the assumption that most early Christians were poor themselves.”
John Barclay, Professor of Divinity
Source: https://www.idunn.no/doi/10.18261/issn.1893-0271-2019-04-04
“The early Church does seem to have been disproportionately female, although exactly how much so is hard to gauge (Hopkins (1998), 203-4, n. 40). It is important to remember that the social position of women in the Roman Empire remained sharply constrained. Early penetration into local civic elite households seem to have been primarily through women (e.g. Perpetua). Slaves also seem to have been a significant part of the early Church and in some cases even found themselves in leadership roles (Shaner (2018), but cf. Meeks (1983), 64). Early Christian communities were evidently accused of targeting the illiterate, enslaved, young, female and under-educated (Origen, Cels. 3.44, 55; Tert. Against Praxeas 3) – the early Christian apologists seek to defend the Church against this charge, but it does seem that there was some truth to the characterization, at least of the makeup of the Church if not its proselytizing.”
—Dr. Bret C. Devereaux: is an ancient and military historian who currently teaches as a Visiting Lecturer in the Department of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has his PhD in ancient history from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and his MA in classical civilizations from Florida State University.
Source: https://acoup.blog/2019/09/07/new-acquisitions-class-status-and-the-early-church/
Gary, just because YOU think Christianity is too fantastic to believe doesn’t mean lots of other haven’t decided exactly the opposite. Read Francis Collins’ conversion account–from the BOOK, not the video clip of him being interviewed on TV–and then tell me he turned his brain off in order to convert.
Pax.
Lee.
Tens of thousands of Muslim scientists, surgeons, engineers, lawyers, and other very educated intelligent people believe that Mohammad flew on a winged horse above Jerusalem for a few hours. Conclusion: Just because a lot of very intelligent people believe something does not make it true.
GARY: Tens of thousands of Muslim scientists, surgeons, engineers, lawyers, and other very educated intelligent people believe that Mohammad flew on a winged horse above Jerusalem for a few hours. Conclusion: Just because a lot of very intelligent people believe something does not make it true.
LEE: Obviously Gary. Give me a little credit here, guy.
I’m specifically talking about conversions, people that convert from one religion to Christianity or no religion to Christianity. Converts like CS Lewis or Francis Collins don’t typically convert on a whim, just to try something different. Lewis described himself as “the most reluctant convert in all of England”–he didn’t WANT it to be true–however he was intellectually honest enough to follow the evidence where it led him.
I was addressing your earlier statement that most Gentile converts to early Christianity were ignorant bumpkins willing to swallow anything if it gave then a leg up, which is false. Give THEM some credit.
Gary, you and a lot of other skeptics I’ve met over the past 20 years seem to have this weird presupposition that nobody who converts to Christianity could possibly do so based upon a rational intellectual assessment of the evidence, that anyone who converts (then or now) must do so out of a desperate emotional need to believe *something*. And while I’ve known more than a few people whose primary reason for belief was an emotional need, that in no way characterizes everyone who converts.
Again, I urge you to read Francis Collins’ published conversion account in *The Language of God.* There is very little emotionalism evidence anywhere in it.
Pax.
Lee.
CS Lewis was not a part of early Christianity. CS Lewis grew up in a country in which Christianity is the official religion of the land. So just like very intelligent Muslim scientists who grow up heavily influenced by the supernatural teachings of the surrounding culture, the same is true for CS Lewis. Would Lewis the intellectual have converted to an unheard of religion which taught that if you drink the blood and eat the flesh of a dead convict, you will attain eternal life? I doubt it.
Prior to Constantine, the overwhelming majority of Christian converts belonged to the poorer (ie. uneducated classes). That is what the expert say. (See quotes above) Once the Emperor converted (influenced by his Christian mother, not by a scholarly review of the evidence), things changed.
Gary, if merely growing up exposed to a certain religion predisposes you to believe that religion, how do you explain someone like CS Lewis who abandons that religion for atheism? Or, like my friend Amber, even for another religious faith (she grew up in church but abandoned it for Wicca)?
Or what about a person, say, in Nigeria, which has lots of Christians and Muslims; and probably still some holdouts to the old tribal faiths; which religion will this person be predisposed to believe?
And how do you explain lifelong Muslims who convert to Christianity? Or Orthodox Jews from birth who become atheists?
You see, your scenario is too shallow to explain what’s really going on. Then or now.
There were a whole host of reasons ancients converted from paganism to Christianity, not just emotional or intellectual. Unlike paganism Christianity was egalitarian, and appealed to all ethnic groups and social classes; Christians elevated the status of women and young girls; Christians elevated the poor; Christians were known for public and private acts of charity in the name of their God (for example, looking after widows and orphans). Where were the ancient orphanages run by the devotees of Zeus?
While admitting that networks of family and friends play an important role, on page 19 of his 1996 *The Rise of Christianity* Rodney Stark argues that “new religious movements mainly draw their converts from the ranks of the religiously inactive and discontented, and those affiliated with the most accommodated (worldly) religious communities.”
What this means is that the upper and middle classes were/are more likely to convert from one faith to another than the lower classes.
As for Constantine, on page 10 of his *The Rise of Christianity* Stark writes: “Constantine’s conversion would better be seen as a response to the massive exponential wave in progress [across the Roman Empire, due to Christianity], not as its cause.”
Or what about Augustine? Augustine wasn’t an ignorant slave; he was from the upper classes and as a young man received the standard classical pagan education. How do you explain his conversion?
You haven’t even explained Saul of Tarsus’ conversion, yet. All you’ve done is insist that he saw a light. How would merely seeing a really bright light persuade an educated, lifelong Pharisaic Jew on the fast track to abandon the faith of his ancestors?
Or James. The brother of Jesus. How do you explain his conversion?
Pax.
Lee.
Lee: And how do you explain lifelong Muslims who convert to Christianity? Or Orthodox Jews from birth who become atheists?
Gary: Yes, some people do convert to other belief systems, but most people adopt the belief systems of their parents and culture.
If Mr. Stark says that the upper classes were more likely to convert to Christianity in the first century then he is in direct contradiction with the two experts I quote above. We will both have to do more research to see if there is a scholarly consensus on this issue.
Commenting on the received wisdom that the early Church was comprised mostly of the lower-classes, the late Prof. Stark commented in a 2000 interview with *Touchstone Magazine*:
“In the upper-class and senatorial families, and even the imperial family, there were many women who were Christians, even early on. In the 1920s we found a paving block dedicated to Erastus, whom Paul mentioned in his Letter to the Corinthians, and the block shows that Erastus was city treasurer. And there’s reason to believe that we have in the early Church a quite literate group. When you read the New Testament, for example, ask: Who are these people talking to? The language there is the language used by educated people.” (https://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-01-044-i)
Now here’s a link to an interview with Prof. Stark; at approx. 3:42 he addresses what he views as the incorrect assumption that earliest Christianity was comprised only or mainly of the lower-classes. In the interview he asks a valid question:
If most early Christians were ignorant and illiterate, why did they feel compelled to write the four gospels and all of the letters which comprise the NT? I mean, if nobody could read, who was Paul writing to?
The reason the codex, or book, took off in antiquity, was largely due to its use by the early church for its gospels and other texts.
This doesn’t look to me like a faith comprised only or primarily of illiterate, ignorant slaves to me.
https://www.olivetreemedia.com.au/why-christianity-interview-with-rodney-stark/
If Christianity were primarily a faith for the ignorant or weak-minded, you have a hard time explaining how so many notable intellectuals throughout history have been believers; you can’t chalk that up to a mere accident of birth for that many people.
Pax..
Lee.
Lee: You haven’t even explained Saul of Tarsus’ conversion, yet. All you’ve done is insist that he saw a light. How would merely seeing a really bright light persuade an educated, lifelong Pharisaic Jew on the fast track to abandon the faith of his ancestors? Or James. The brother of Jesus. How do you explain his conversion?
Gary: Odd conversions happen all the time.
“The classic summary of the nature of the Church – essentially at the moment of Constantine’s conversion – is that of A.H.M. Jones who noted in a 1958 lecture that “the main strength of Christianity lay in the lower and middle classes of the towns, the manual workers and clerks, the shop keepers and merchants” (Jones (1963), 21). As Peter Brown notes in Through the Eye of a Needle, “all subsequent research (especially that conducted on the social origins of the clergy) has proved Jone’s insight to be substantially correct” (Brown (2014), 36, n. 20).
Christian catacomb tomb inscriptions in Rome show exactly the sort of ‘middle-class’ urban artisans we would expect – the sort of men and women who were not elites themselves, but made a living supplying the needs of the elites. These are, as Brown puts it, “women as weavers of silk…men as makers of mirrors…barbers with their instruments…grooms leading fine horses” (Brown (2014), 37). Dare we say it – cobblers making shoes?”
Source: https://acoup.blog/2019/09/07/new-acquisitions-class-status-and-the-early-church/
Still, the most influential thinkers and philosophers in the first 3 centuries before Constantine were…you guessed it… Christians.
I don’t think Philo was a Christian. Could you list who you are speaking of?
Philosophers of the 1st Century CE
–Epictetus
(50 – 138)Roman philosopher
–Marcus Aurelius
(121-180)Roman emperor and philosopher
Philosophers of the 3rd Century CE
–Plotinus
(c. 204-270)Greco-roman philosopher
Gary, in a 2000 interview with *Touchstone Magazine* the late Prof. Stark was asked about the received wisdom that the early Church was comprised mostly of the illiterate lower-classes, to which he replied:
“In the upper-class and senatorial families, and even the imperial family, there were many women who were Christians, even early on. In the 1920s we found a paving block dedicated to Erastus, whom Paul mentioned in his Letter to the Corinthians, and the block shows that Erastus was city treasurer. And there’s reason to believe that we have in the early Church a quite literate group. When you read the New Testament, for example, ask: Who are these people talking to? The language there is the language used by educated people.” (https://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-01-044-i)
Now here’s a link to a video interview with the Prof. Stark. At about 3:42 he addresses the idea that all or most of the members early church were ignorant, illiterate lower-class people. He raises a valid point: if everyone in the early church was illiterate, why do we have 4 gospels, 22 letters, and John’s Apocalypse? I mean, if nobody could read, who were these people writing to?
We know that the codex, or book, became popularly in late antiquity largely due to its use by the Christian Church.
None of this sounds like the religion of illiterate slaves and peasants.
And Dr. Anderson raised a great point. How is it that a faith fit only for ignorant country-bumpkins attracted so many educated thinkers and philosophers in its first 3 centuries alone? Accident of birth won’t cut it because many of these men converted from paganism.
https://www.olivetreemedia.com.au/why-christianity-interview-with-rodney-stark/
And the blog you linked to wasn’t written by Fr. Brown, but by someone quoting Fr. Brown.
And he’s only one scholar..
Pax.
Lee.
Encyclopedia Britannica: “Initially, Christianity found most of its adherents among the poor and illiterate, making little headway—as St. Paul observed (1 Corinthians 1:26)—among the worldly-wise, the mighty, and those of high rank. But during the 2nd century CE and afterward, it appealed more and more to the educated class and to leading citizens.”
Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/education/Europe-in-the-Middle-Ages
Again, if nobody in the early church could read, why did they write the New Testament? Who were they writing to?
I grant the low literacy rates, though I question Ehrman’s 97% statistic–I’d say the literacy rate was ca. 15-20%, in the wider Empire, probably higher in Palestine, which, unlike Greece and Rome, had written scriptures and a tradition of teachers or rabbis taking on disciples
I grant that in part because of the high illiteracy rate the Empire placed more weight on oral testimony than written testimony–thus had safeguards in place to ensure it was transmitted accurately..
Yet nevertheless by the end of the 1st c. AD SOMEBODY, and somebody LITERATE in the early Church, wrote the New Testament. If NOBODY could read, why bother?
Pax.
Lee.
I never said that EVERYONE was illiterate and poor.
After these points Celsus quotes some objections against the doctrine of Jesus, made by a very few individuals who are considered Christians, not of the more intelligent, as he supposes, but of the more ignorant class, and asserts that “the following are the rules laid down by them. Let no one come to us who has been instructed, or who is wise or prudent (for such qualifications are deemed evil by us); but if there be any ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed, or foolish persons, let them come with confidence. By which words, acknowledging that such individuals are worthy of their God, they manifestly show that they desire and are able to gain over only the silly, and the mean, and the stupid, with women and children.”…
Celsus, a second century Greek writer, as quoted in “Contra Celsus” by Origen
GARY: After these points Celsus quotes some objections against the doctrine of Jesus, made by a very few individuals who are considered Christians, not of the more intelligent, as he supposes, but of the more ignorant class, and asserts that “the following are the rules laid down by them. Let no one come to us who has been instructed, or who is wise or prudent (for such qualifications are deemed evil by us); but if there be any ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed, or foolish persons, let them come with confidence. By which words, acknowledging that such individuals are worthy of their God, they manifestly show that they desire and are able to gain over only the silly, and the mean, and the stupid, with women and children.”…
LEE: You are aware that Origen, who wrote the excerpt you cited above, was a wise, educated, LITERATE Christian? One of the most learned, literate Christians of his era, yes, but for all that, one of MANY.
So if those words of Celsus were meant to be taken LITERALLY, then then the early Church violated its own rules by allowing fathers like Ignatius, Clement, Athenagorus, Justin, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, etc., etc. to teach and write.
And you realize that Celsus was not the most objective author, right? His goal was to portray Christianity in the most negative light possible.
Pax.
Lee.
Paul didn’t say “none of you” but “not many of you,” and that was ca. 55 AD, a mere 25 years after Jesus’ death. Yet even then there were some notable upper-class converts: Just a few which come to mind are:
Theophilus, the “dedicatee” of Luke-Acts.
Zacchaeus, the tax-collector from the gospels
Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza from the gospels
Phoebe of Cenchrea from Romans 16
Lydia of Phillippi from Acts 16
Cornelius the Centurion from Acts chapter 7
Erastus the treasurer of Corinth in Acts 19
Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, and Damaris, named with him, from Acts 17
I’m not saying the church was comprised solely of upper-class people, only that there were more educated-upper-class converts than people have thought.
More than enough to stand your argument that Christianity primarily appealed to the ignorant poor desperate to believe in something on its head.
Pax.
Lee.
Celsus was a second century eyewitness. He disagrees with your claim.
GARY: Celsus was a second century eyewitness. He disagrees with your claim.
LEE: Celsus was not an unbiased witness; his polemical goal was to make Christians look bad. You don’t think he could’ve exaggerated?
The very fact that the Christian who refuted Celsus was an educated, literate, upper-class scholar of GK and Hebrew proves that Celsus didn’t know what he was talking about.
No. Celsus tells us a lot about what late 2nd c. critics of the church THOUGHT they believed but its use as accurate, honest reporting of what 2nd c. Christians actually believed is a bit more problematic. Pagan critics also accused Christians of cannibalism; was that accurate?
In Chapter 4 of his 2004 book *The Birth of the Church* Prof. Ivor J. Davidson addresses the social makeup of the earliest church:
“It would be quite wrong to imagine, however, that the Jesus movement was essentially proletarian, made up primarily of the poor, the dispossessed, and the vulnerable. The charge that Christianity attracted only the weak, the vulgar, and the ignorant (or “women, children, slaves, and fools”) was commonly made by pagan critics in the second century and beyond, and this interpretation has had plenty of supporters in modern times, not least amongst scholars influenced by Marxist approaches to sociology. The evidence, however, is against it. Certainly the Nazarenes did not for the most part engage the attentions of the landed aristocrats, the senatorial class, or the rich equestrians of the Roman world. They, however, made up only a very small proportion of the ancient populace, and compared to them, more or less everyone was subject in some measure to the vagaries of economic circumstances. Very probably the Jesus movement did have some appeal for unskilled manual workers, hired menials, and laborers, and there were certainly constituencies of vulnerable believers for whom charitable collections and the distribution of aid were necessary (I Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8:1-9’ 15). The Pauline letters also give some instruction to slaves (Eph. 6:5-8; Col. 3:22-25; cf. I Cor. 7:20-24). But the gospel appealed not only to the vulnerable; in fact, we have a greater degree of evidence of its effects upon those who represented what we might very loosely call the “middle” or “lower middle” classes than we have of conversions at the lowest levels on the social scale.
“It is thus mistaken to suppose that those at the edges of society made up the core of Christianity’s followers. Although Paul states that “not many” of his converts in Corinth were “wise by human standards,” or “influential,” or “of noble birth” (I Cor. 1:26), he also mentions in the same context other significant facts. Among the very few individuals he had baptized in the city were Crispus and Gaius (I Cor. 1:14). Crispus, as the Jewish synagogue leader (Acts 18:8), was a man of some standing in his community, and Gaius was evidently of sufficient wealth to offer hospitality not only to Paul but to all believers in Corinth (Rom. 16:23). Erastus, the city’s director of public works, a wealthy individual capable of financing civic schemes out of his own resources, is also notably cited among the Corinthian Christians (Rom. 16:23). It is in fact quite likely that some of the problems in the Corinthian church were attributable to tensions between individuals of different social strata, with different expectations about appropriate moral conduct. Even if they were not in a majority, the well-off or the successful in worldly terms were not entirely absent from the local body, and their attitudes may well have been a cause of resentment among more lowly members.
“In Acts, we see the gospel achieving success or at least a sympathetic hearing from a number of figures broadly representative of a military, political, and economic elite, such as the Ethiopian treasurer (Acts 8:26-39), the centurion Cornelius (10:1-48), Manaen, “who had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch” (13:1), Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus (13:7), and certain Greek women and men of prominent standing in Berea (17:12). Asian officials are described as Paul’s friends in Acts 19:31, and Paul is at home conversing with those in powerful positions, even if he does not persuade them of his message (24:24-26; 26:1-31). Although the proportion of socially prominent persons within the Jesus movement as a whole may have been small, it was not nonexistent.
“The supposition that the poor and the uneducated are naturally more inclined to religious belief is in any case not borne out by the findings of more recent scholarship in the social sciences. Like every other movement that has emerged out of an existing religious culture, faith in Jesus must generally have taken root among those who were privileged enough in socioeconomic terms to be capable of giving serious consideration to the possibilities of immersing themselves in a new lifestyle. The privilege in question, of course, is relative; those who convert to a new faith need to be both in a position to understand the new demands and opportunities it represents *and* at the same time sufficiently disaffected by their existing position within their inherited culture to be prepared to make a change. They will not be so lacking in physical security that they can give no thought to any religious message because they are preoccupied with the more pressing concern of how they are going to stay alive, but they will also perceive that their present condition fails to satisfy their longings and needs. Had early Christianity been obviously a movement spearheaded by a restless proletariat or those with no sense of social belonging, it would almost certainly have been crushed by Rome at a very early date as a political threat. The fact that it was not suggests that it drew its converts from a wider cross-section of society.” (pp. 103-104)
Davidson says in endnote 2 of Chapter 4: “The idea that the poor were disproportionately represented in the Pauline churches continues to have its supporters, but it is opposed by much of the best scholarship on the social makeup of the communities with which Paul engaged.”
Pax.
Lee.
LEE: Celsus was not an unbiased witness; his polemical goal was to make Christians look bad. You don’t think he could’ve exaggerated?
Gary: Excellent! Ditto for the anonymous authors of the Gospels! They too were biased. Their polemical goal was “so that you might believe”. You don’t think they could’ve exaggerated???
Gary. If you agree that Celsus was writing anti-Christian propaganda then why did you post his statements as unbiased evidence? Because that’s all the claims of Celsus are, biased evidence, not proof of their accuracy.
Celsus was writing in the 180s AD, 130 years after the first letter from Paul was written. Origen wrote his *Contra Celsum* 68 years after Celsus! I have no doubt that Origen carefully and accurately recorded at least the gist of Celsus’s arguments (the better to refute them) but nevertheless, all Celsus proves is what pagan critics of Christianity thought about it 130 years after it had begun. Paul, writing a mere 20 years after Jesus’ death, is thus a much better source for original Christianity and its social makeup than either Celsus or Origen.
Thus, you still haven’t proved to me your claim that:
“Most Gentile converts were in the lower classes who were desperate for any glimmer of hope to their miserable lives. Christianity promised social equality and eternal riches. The educated classes ridiculed this tale.”
As for your suspicion of the gospels, the issue at hand isn’t how reliable the gospels are, but what the general social makeup of the earliest church was. Paul is our earliest and best witness for the social makeup of the early church, and he was writing to other Christians who already knew what the social makeup of the early church was, so if you’re going to say Paul was :”fudging,” then what would be the reason? Why say certain prominent Corinthians had converted if everyone knew they hadn’t?
I just produced a balanced assessment of the social makeup of the early church from Prof. Davidson; if you think he’s wrong, please cite someone other than Celsus to prove your point.
Pax.
Lee.
Evidence from Paul of Tarsus that most early Christians were poor, uneducated, and of the lower classes:
Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise by human standards,[e] not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to abolish things that are, 29 so that no one[f] might boast in the presence of God.
–Paul of Tarsus to the church in Corinth
“The idea that the poor were disproportionately represented in the Pauline churches continues to have its supporters, but it is opposed by much of the best scholarship on the social makeup of the communities with which Paul engaged.” –Professor Ivor Davidson
Dear Reader: Who should we believe: Paul of Tarsus and Celsus, two eyewitnesses of the Early Church in the first three centuries, or Professor Davidson, living in the 21st century?
No one is claiming that the poor and marginalized didnt comprise a lot of the early movements.
All that is being emphasized is that in the early centuries, Christianity also attracted a good number of philosophers and thinkers–Justin Martyr, for example.
Thank you for stepping in Joel. I agree with you. Although most of early Christianity was comprised of the poor, uneducated, lower classes, just as Paul and Celsus state, there were notable exceptions, such as Justin Martyr (and Paul). That is certainly true.
But that is not the argument that Lee and his evangelical theologians are making. They say that, I quote, “It would be quite wrong to imagine, however, that the Jesus movement was essentially proletarian, made up primarily of the poor, the dispossessed, and the vulnerable.”
This is blatantly false. The truth is that Lee’s position is a minority view; it is the view of only evangelical (and fundamentalist) Protestant scholars, strongly indicating that it is a position based on bias. But Lee keeps pushing it as if it is a scholarly consensus and as if I am reading Paul’s very clear statement in First Corinthians with “wooden literalism”.
I am happy to hear that you do not hold Lee’s very biased view on this issue.
The movement cut across a wide socio-econimic spectrum. Saying that most of the movement came from the ranks of the poor and illiterate, while technically true, is irrelevant, given that most EVERYONE in the ancient world was poor and illiterate.
The Jesus movement had thr poor, the rich, men, women, working class and upper class.
You are correct, Joel. As Bart Ehrman says in the video above, 97% of people in the first century were illiterate. If Christianity represented society at large, as you suggest, then 97% of early Christians were illiterate (which meant they were poor and from the lower classes). Only the rich were literate. So approximately 3% of early Christians would have been literate and from the upper classes. This is NOT what Lee and his evangelical theologians are claiming, however:
“It would be quite wrong to imagine, however, that the Jesus movement was essentially proletarian, made up primarily of the poor, the dispossessed, and the vulnerable.”–Lee’s evangelical theologian quoted above.
If the overwhelming majority of the Roman Empire was proletarian, as even you agree, then the overwhelming majority of the Church was proletarian. Trying to suggest that the early Church consisted primarily of the educated classes is pure nonsense and wishful thinking.
The point is that it still nevertheless DID make headway among the educated classes as well.
You are correct, Joel several very intelligent, very educated Gentiles, such as Justin Martyr, did convert to Christianity in the first three centuries. However, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of educated *Jews* rejected the claims of this (originally) Jewish sect…and continue to reject it to this day. Why do you think so many educated Jews reject this Jewish story, Joel?
Paul of Tarsus converted to Christianity due to a “heavenly vision”.
Justin Martyr converted to Christianity due to his admiration of the Christian martyrs. He never says that his conversion occurred due to a rigorous study of the evidence for the Resurrection.
Constantine’s mother was Christian. His conversion was triggered by a vision, but most people eventually adopt the religion of their parents, in particular, that of their mother.
Augustine’s mother was Christian. Augustine, like many young people, rejected his mother’s religion as a young man, but eventually, like many, came back to it.
How many educated people in the first centuries of Christianity converted due to evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and how many converted due to a mystical experience or due to the influence of their mother?
GARY: Paul of Tarsus converted to Christianity due to a “heavenly vision”.
LEE: So now its a “heavenly vision” and not just a “light”? Well, that’s some progress at least. But as I keep saying, Second Temple Jews had religious vocabulary they used to describe dreams and visions, which Paul never uses to describe the appearances of Jesus to himself, the 11 disciples and over 500 others; plus, it would take more than a “heavenly vision” to convince such a Second Temple Messianic Jew that the previously executed Yeshua had, in fact, been raised from the dead, thus was, in fact, the Messiah.
GARY: Constantine’s mother was Christian. His conversion was triggered by a vision, but most people eventually adopt the religion of their parents, in particular, that of their mother.
LEE: Gary, you should write for Wikipedia. Do you have evidence for the accuracy of this assertion? Because Stark, the sociologist would disagree with you. Constantine’s conversion was much more complex than that, as you’d know if you’d read any books on his conversion.
GARY: Justin Martyr converted to Christianity due to his admiration of the Christian martyrs. He never says that his conversion occurred due to a rigorous study of the evidence for the Resurrection.
LEE: After first trying Stoicism, Pythagoreanism and Platonism, Justin found Christianity. At last, about A.D. 130, after a conversation with an unnamed old man, his life was transformed, and he describes it thusly: “A fire was suddenly kindled in my soul. I fell in love with the prophets and these men who had loved Christ; I reflected on all their words and found that this philosophy alone was true and profitable. That is how and why I became a philosopher. And I wish that everyone felt the same way that I do.”
Justin gives us the main gist, but there was undoubtedly a bit more to it than what he specifically mentions here.
GARY: Augustine’s mother was Christian. Augustine, like many young people, rejected his mother’s religion as a young man, but eventually, like many, came back to it.
LEE: As for Augustine, he, too, tried various religions and philosophies, finally settling on the dualistic Manichean faith. Christianity being the faith of his mom Monica had less to do with his eventual conversion than the preaching of the famed Bishop Ambrose of Milan who, in Augustine’s words, made Christianity “defensible.”
In *Confessions* 5.14, Augustine recounts the impact Ambrose’s preaching had on him:
“Together with the language, which I admired, the subject matter also, to which I was indifferent, began to enter into my mind. Indeed I could not separate the one from the other. And as I opened my heart in order to recognize how eloquently he [Ambrose] was speaking it occurred to me at the same time (though this idea came gradually) how truly he was speaking. First I began to see that the points which he made were capable of being defended. I had thought that nothing could be said for the Catholic faith in the face of the objections raised by the Manichees, but it now appeared to me that this faith could be maintained on reasonable grounds — especially when I had heard one or two passages in the Old Testament explained, usually in a figurative way, which when I had taken them literally, had been a cause of death to me.”
Did you catch that: “but it now appeared to me that this faith could be maintained on reasonable grounds ”
GARY: How many educated people in the first centuries of Christianity converted due to evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and how many converted due to a mystical experience or due to the influence of their mother?
LEE: You haven’t provided evidence that anyone ever converted for these reasons. Paul himself argues that the resurrection is the lynchpin of the faith, that without a literal, historical resurrection there wouldn’t even BE a faith to begin with. Peter, in his Acts 2 sermon insists that Jesus’ resurrection was the proof that he really was the Messiah.
So without a resurrection to “kick-start” the church, we wouldn’t be here debating whether Justin or Augustine cared enough to investigate it before their conversions.
Gary, my friend, I’m sorry but your objections above are shallow and do not evince a real grasp of the issues at all.
Pax.
Lee.
I thought I addressed this two posts ago?
“It would be quite wrong to imagine, however, that the Jesus movement was essentially proletarian, made up primarily of the poor, the dispossessed, and the vulnerable. The charge that Christianity attracted only the weak, the vulgar, and the ignorant (or “women, children, slaves, and fools”) was commonly made by pagan critics in the second century and beyond, and this interpretation has had plenty of supporters in modern times, not least amongst scholars influenced by Marxist approaches to sociology. The evidence, however, is against it. Certainly the Nazarenes did not for the most part engage the attentions of the landed aristocrats, the senatorial class, or the rich equestrians of the Roman world. They, however, made up only a very small proportion of the ancient populace, and compared to them, more or less everyone was subject in some measure to the vagaries of economic circumstances. Very probably the Jesus movement did have some appeal for unskilled manual workers, hired menials, and laborers, and there were certainly constituencies of vulnerable believers for whom charitable collections and the distribution of aid were necessary (I Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8:1-9’ 15). The Pauline letters also give some instruction to slaves (Eph. 6:5-8; Col. 3:22-25; cf. I Cor. 7:20-24). But the gospel appealed not only to the vulnerable; in fact, we have a greater degree of evidence of its effects upon those who represented what we might very loosely call the “middle” or “lower middle” classes than we have of conversions at the lowest levels on the social scale. .
“It is thus mistaken to suppose that those at the edges of society made up the core of Christianity’s followers. Although Paul states that “not many” of his converts in Corinth were “wise by human standards,” or “influential,” or “of noble birth” (I Cor. 1:26), he also mentions in the same context other significant facts. Among the very few individuals he had baptized in the city were Crispus and Gaius (I Cor. 1:14). Crispus, as the Jewish synagogue leader (Acts 18:8), was a man of some standing in his community, and Gaius was evidently of sufficient wealth to offer hospitality not only to Paul but to all believers in Corinth (Rom. 16:23). Erastus, the city’s director of public works, a wealthy individual capable of financing civic schemes out of his own resources, is also notably cited among the Corinthian Christians (Rom. 16:23).” (Davidson, 2004, p. 103)
Pax.
Lee.
GARY: Dear Reader: Who should we believe: Paul of Tarsus and Celsus, two eyewitnesses of the Early Church in the first three centuries, or Professor Davidson, living in the 21st century?
LEE: Dear reader, whose interpretation of Paul and Celsus should we believe, Gary’s, a former fundamentalist-turned-skeptic with an axe to grind’s, wooden, literalistic interpretation, or the nuanced, evidence-based interpretation of two academic scholars, Profs Stark and Davidson?
Pax.
Lee.
Paul of Tarsus to the church in Corinthians: “Brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise by human standards,[e] not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.”
What part of that passage am I reading with biased wooden literalism, Lee?
The Apostle Paul says that Professor Davidson is wrong, Lee. Accept the facts.
GARY: The Apostle Paul says that Professor Davidson is wrong, Lee. Accept the facts.
LEE: No, he really doesn’t. You’re basing an entire argument on a literal, wooden interpretation of one sentence in one of Paul’s letters. And all this says is that in the Corinthian church there weren’t a lot of educated, aristocratic members. It says nothing about the other churches across the Mediterranean.
But of course, as Davidson and Stark point out, there were relatively few educated, intellectual aristocrats in the Roman Empire anyway, fewer still in Corinth. But people in that “middle” class who had some means and at least a basic literacy, represented far more of the early church’s members than has been assumed. Otherwise–again–who was Paul writing to?
Stark has observed that, “Had the followers of Jesus remained an obscure Jewish sect, most of you would not have learned to read, and the rest of you would be reading from hand-copied scrolls.”
Pax.
Lee.
Yes, the church in Corinth consisted primarily of the poor, but all the other Christian churches in the Roman empire in the first century were filled with philosophers, scientists, and engineers!
You are funny, Lee.
I will not respond to any more of your biased silliness, Lee.
GARY: Yes, the church in Corinth consisted primarily of the poor, but all the other Christian churches in the Roman empire in the first century were filled with philosophers, scientists, and engineers!
You are funny, Lee.
LEE: Maybe so, if that was what I was actually saying, but it’s not.
If you can’t understand my point by now maybe we have reached an impasse. Honestly, I think you’re trying desperately hard *not* to understand it, or at least, not to deal with it seriously because of your preconceived idea that most Christians of the early church were ignorant unskilled workers.
If that’s what you have chosen to believe because it helps to underpin your skepticism there’s nothing I can do to get you to be open to the nuances of the actual issue. If you look hard enough you can find a scholar who’ll agree with almost any view you have on any subject, then you can cite them as an authority and be done with it. Quick and easy. But not really evidence of critical thinking.
Pax.
Lee.
Lee, do you ever venture out of the Christian “bubble”? Do you ever allow your views (and thought processes) to be challenged in a non-Christian environment? I would encourage you to do that. You might find that your “critical thinking skills” are not as sharp as you assume. Come to my blog and debate my non-Christian readers. I think you will find it informative.
Peace,
Gary, author of Escaping Christian Fundamentalism blog
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2023/03/09/jesus-performed-all-his-great-miracles-in-public-except-his-resurrection-appearances-why/
GARY: Lee, do you ever venture out of the Christian “bubble”? Do you ever allow your views (and thought processes) to be challenged in a non-Christian environment? I would encourage you to do that. You might find that your “critical thinking skills” are not as sharp as you assume. Come to my blog and debate my non-Christian readers. I think you will find it informative.
LEE: As I’ve said many times before, I spent lots of time 15 years ago in the Amazon.com Religion Forums before they shut them down and probably 90% of the people I dialogued with were skeptics/atheists, thus it was hardly a Christian “bubble.”
I’ll be the first person to admit that there are are probably lots of people smarter than me, however is your argument that Augustine became a Christian largely because his mother was one–an argument which totally ignores the myriad historical, intellectual and social factors involved in Augustine’s (and most other thinking peoples’) conversion–an example of the level of debate I can expect?
Pax.
Lee.
“In Chapter 9 (“Back and Beyond”), Dr. S says that when YHWH “passed by” Moses on Mount Sinai, it wasn’t much that YHWH showed Moses His “back,” but rather His “backside,” namely His buttocks”
Perhaps Stavrakopoulou was thinking of the Wicked Bible; a misprint of the KJV that most famously included “Thou shalt commit adultery” but, relevantly for our purposes, included in its version of Deuteronomy 5: “Behold, the Lord our God hath shewed us his glory and his great-asse.”